Caples-Guerra v. State of Minnesota
Caples-Guerra v. State of Minnesota
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA Marcus Angelo Caples-Guerra, Civ. No. 21-1105 (PAM/ECW) Petitioner, v. ORDER State of Minnesota and County of Ramsey, Respondents.
This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (R&R) of United States Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright dated May 10, 2021. The R&R recommends that Petitioner Marcus Angelo Caples-Guerra’s Petition for habeas-corpus relief be denied and no certificate of appealability be granted. Petitioner did not file any objections to the R&R, and the time to do so has passed. D. Minn. L.R. 72.2(b)(1).
This Court must review de novo any portion of an R&R to which specific objections are made, but in the absence of objections, the Court reviews the R&R only for clear error. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); D. Minn. L.R. 72.2(b); see also Grinder v. Gammon, 73 F.3d 793, 795 (8th Cir. 1996) (noting that district court need only review un-objected-to R&R for clear error). The Court has reviewed the R&R and finds no error, clear or otherwise, in the Magistrate Judge’s reasoning.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. The R&R (Docket No. 3) is ADOPTED; 2. The Petition (Docket No. 1) is DENIED; 3. This action is DISMISSED without prejudice; and 4. No Certificate of Appealability will issue.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated: Wednesday, June 9, 2021 s/ Paul A. Magnuson Paul A. Magnuson United States District Court Judge
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA Marcus Angelo Caples-Guerra, Civ. No. 21-1105 (PAM/ECW) Petitioner, v. ORDER State of Minnesota and County of Ramsey, Respondents.
This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (R&R) of United States Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright dated May 10, 2021. The R&R recommends that Petitioner Marcus Angelo Caples-Guerra’s Petition for habeas-corpus relief be denied and no certificate of appealability be granted. Petitioner did not file any objections to the R&R, and the time to do so has passed. D. Minn. L.R. 72.2(b)(1).
This Court must review de novo any portion of an R&R to which specific objections are made, but in the absence of objections, the Court reviews the R&R only for clear error. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); D. Minn. L.R. 72.2(b); see also Grinder v. Gammon, 73 F.3d 793, 795 (8th Cir. 1996) (noting that district court need only review un-objected-to R&R for clear error). The Court has reviewed the R&R and finds no error, clear or otherwise, in the Magistrate Judge’s reasoning.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. The R&R (Docket No. 3) is ADOPTED; 2. The Petition (Docket No. 1) is DENIED; 3. This action is DISMISSED without prejudice; and 4. No Certificate of Appealability will issue.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated: Wednesday, June 9, 2021 s/ Paul A. Magnuson Paul A. Magnuson United States District Court Judge
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.